Hi, I don't undestand what is the meaning of your transitions in BPMN context? They're not a BPMN object. If the aim is to show that the operations must be done on a certain sequence, then the BPMN Object "Sequence Flow" has exactly this meaning. It can be done in any BPMN diagram on MEGA.
... View more

This actually seems to be the minimum-complexity path. I understand why you give this recommandation and it's a pity because the comparaison tool offered with the variant tool is really useful. Some remarks : It is possible to exclude/replace (?!) Sequence Flow, but this is not visually indicated in any diagram. I think the use of "Cut" for excluded objects could maybe be replaced with the use of "Hide". Maxime
... View more

Hi, In our convention, we're using the "Message" concept in both cases and use an attribute to sort the "technology" used for transferring. If end-users needs a hint about the nature, we may add free shapes on the diagram (a group around the relevant messages and a small XML icon inside) to make it clear that some messages are transmitted by file transfer. When the message is going through a middleware, we can represent it by two different messages in "technical view" : one AppA-->Middleware and one Middleware--> AppB. It's fine beacause "technologies" used in the two halves may be different.
... View more

Hi everyone, I'm trying to make sense of the Variation Tool for processes in MEGA. I don't think my issues are technical, but that I don't understand the "philosophy" behind the tool. I use HOPEX V1R2 CP6.10 (due to upgrade to V1R3 in Q4 2015) and got some shape extension precisely on variant : The Varied Organizationnal Process get a "trident" thingie on them. The Variant Organizationnal Process are colored dark purple. The operation belonging on a Variant diagram but not on a Varied diagram elsewhere will be colored light purple. So, here is my User Story. Let's say I got a process called "L'Original" with three tasks : Now, I create a variant of this : If my objective is to replace the operation "Et aussi" by "Et ca en plus": I can use the "Replace" tool of MEGA, but here goes nothing except exclusion of the original task and creation of a link not visible in the diagram. Of course, I can manually place the substitution on the original task in order to "pretend" it is substituted (which makes me very perplex, as this seem a very quick-and-dirty modeling trick). What's more, the little red cross from the Excluded operation is still visible on the diagram and confuses my users to no avail. If my objective is to insert this operation "Et ca en plus" between "Et aussi" and the following merge gateway: What I had observed since is that the "inherited" operation *and sequence flow* are the same object than the original ones. It is not possible to remove a sequence flow without breaking the original one. This makes inserting not really practical. If my objective is to just remove an operation without adding a new one: I can use the "Exclude" tool, but apart from adding the little red cross, it does not really make something. The sequence flow are still there, and only when I explore the result model it shoes that it created the"Substitution" invisible link from the original task to... nothing. Of course, I can hid the excluded tasks from the user view, but what should I then do with those "+" gateway in our case? I can't hid them because the flow looks then completely broken. And even then : if you only exclude the task and not the "+" gateway, what happens? In the inner model of MEGA, the "+" gateway is now pointing on a deadaway sequence flow. Which makes the diagram unexecutable and false by BPMN specs. Seems again a bit too "quick-and-dirty" for my tastes. My final take is that even if the model seems pretty robust for analysis (and it is -- as long as you only do "replace" and some "remove"), it miss some intuitiveness to be really practical for end-users not acquainted with the inner workings of MEGA. What do you think about this? Are my end-users and me missing something? Thanks for your feedback, Maxime
... View more

If you are talking about Process diagrams as "high-level" (so BPMN), the already existing object "Data Store" should be exactly what you seek for? It is not visible at first, and you must enable it in the "view" options of a Process Diagram. But then after, you can use it as an "high-level" database, then join it to "component" "physical" databases directly in Properties. Of course, if you're not using BPMN as high-level diagrams, then I agree your first solution seems to be really practical.
... View more